· Public charity
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research
FOUNDATION FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RESEARCH connects funders, researchers and farmers through public-private partnerships to support audacious research addressing the biggest food and agriculture challenges.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 58% of FOUNDATION FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RESEARCH’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 28 grants below total $25,700,536 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $34,756,756 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $9,056,220 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $38k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $942k
- $250k+21 grants · $25M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY | $3,746,812 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON | $2,500,000 |
| MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | $2,500,000 |
| KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY | $2,223,474 |
| SWINE HEALTH INFORMATION CENTER | $2,000,000 |
| TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH | $1,709,281 |
| AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA) | $1,500,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES | $1,344,764 |
| TWO BLADES FOUNDATION | $1,000,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS | $881,526 |
| TECHNOLOGY MATTERS | $749,999 |
| RICH EARTH INSTITUTE | $669,739 |
| UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA | $450,000 |
| CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC | $449,989 |
| UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII | $449,942 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY22–22, $645k) land where the poverty rate runs at 24%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $4.0M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 2 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: DRUG DISCOVERY APPROACH TO IDENTIFY NEW BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION INHIBITORS · THIS PROGRAM IS MEANT TO ADVANCE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CEA SECTOR, MAKING IT POTENTIALLY NET POSITIVE IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND GHG EMISSIONS. THE CEA SECTOR, WHICH SPAN MULTIPLE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS FROM GREENHOUSES TO VERTICAL FARMS, IS THOUGHT OF AS A MORE SUSTAINABLE FORM OF AGRICULTURE THAT MAKES NUTRITIOUS, REGIONALLY PRODUCED FOOD AVAILABLE YEAR-ROUND. AS PRODUCTION FACILITIES, CEA CLAIMS TO USE LESS LAND, WATER, FERTILIZER, AND PESTICIDES, WITH THE DRAWBACK OF HIGHER ENERGY USE ATTRIBUTED TO LIGHTING AND TEMPERATURE REGULATION. THESE CLAIMS ARE BASED ON INTERNAL PRODUCTION ANALYSES, E.G., LESS WATER IS ACTUALLY USED WITHIN THE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND MORE HIGH-QUALITY PRODUCE CAN BE GROWN IN A GIVEN AREA. WHAT THEY MISS IS THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF A REGIONAL SYSTEM, THERE ARE TRADE-OFFS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT SOURCES OF WATER, ENERGY, AND LAND THAT COULD INCREASE.
Stated purpose: FAST-TRACK ON-FARM IMPACT FROM THE COOL SOIL INITIATIVE TO ENHANCE THE CLIMATE RESILIENCE OF AUSTRALIA'S GRAIN PRODUCERS
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +56% since the first grant, against +36% for the ones you funded once.
67 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 51 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.0M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- KSKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION6× · 2019–2024 · $24M · revenue +42%
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION FOR A NEW AMERICAN UNIVERSITY4× · 2017–2022 · $3.8M · revenue +196%- TOTHE ORGANIC CENTER INC2× · 2021–2023 · $3.0M · revenue +75%
Funded once
- ESECOSYSTEM SERVICES MARKET CONSORTIUMone grant, 2023 · $10M · revenue +20%
- ESECOSYSTEM SERVICES MARKET CONSORTIUM LLCone grant, 2019 · $10M
- TETHE ERIC AND WENDY SCHMIDT FUND FOR STRATEGIC INNOVATIONone grant, 2023 · $10M · revenue +14%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Foundation for food and agriculture research connects funders, researchers and farmers through public-private partnerships to support audacious research addressing the biggest food and agriculture challenges.
Bridging the gap between early-stage innovation and commercial application. partnering to de-risk, develop and scale-up discoveries into commercially-viable technology packages.
Our mission is to encourage facilitate support and engage in scientific investigation and research experimentation and to advance educational and training activities related to agriculture and natural resources throughout the state of…
The university of virginia investment management company (uvimco) is organized to invest funds on behalf of the rector and visitors of the university of virginia (the university or uva) and university-associated organizations (uaos).
To hold title and perform related functions in connection with a research park and innovation center in support of michigan state university research foundation.
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
See schedule ouniversity corporation for atmospheric research (ucar), on behalf of, and in cooperation with its member university members, is engaged in the management of long-term atmospheric and related research and educational…
Aura provides innovative, open resources to enable discovery and excellence in research, to unify the astrophysics communities, and to promote public understanding of our universe and the benefits of scientific exploration.
As an organization, the institute of food technologists is focusing its work in four main areas, or "roles and goals." each is wide-reaching and helps to advance our mission.steward for the profession and its community - provide learning,…
To provide the highest level of stewardship for university donors through professional management and oversight of the university of minnesota foundation's assets by creating a focused investment environment with clarity of purpose,…
To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…
To promote, encourage and enhance research activities at the university of south florida.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 33 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 8% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.6% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
81 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 81 of the 163 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NOBLE RESEARCH INSTITUTE LLC ↗
- Who funds ECOSYSTEM SERVICES MARKET CONSORTIUM ↗
- Who funds THE ERIC AND WENDY SCHMIDT FUND FOR STRATEGIC INNOVATION ↗
- Who funds Dairy Science Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds RF CATALYTIC CAPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds Wolfe's Neck Farm Foundation ↗
- Who funds SWINE HEALTH INFORMATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION FOR A NEW AMERICAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds THE ORGANIC CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds Native American Agriculture Fund ↗
- Who funds X PRIZE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWA ↗
- Who funds KIRCHNER IMPACT FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds AGLAUNCH INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Nature Conservancy · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · American Chemical Society · Patagoniaorg · Cornell University · Gates Foundation · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · Extension Foundation · United States Golf Association · University of Delaware · West Virginia University Research Corporation · Community Foundation for San Benito County
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- University of Delaware — 30% of income from government
- University of Central Florida Research Foundation Inc — 10% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.